Frank, maybe you should start a campaign to free Scott Peterson (the California man who was convicted and sent to death row for killing his wife and unborn child). The skeletal remains of Peterson's wife and baby were found washed ashore after being dumped at sea some time earlier. No direct cause of death was determined and most of the evidence against Peterson was circumstantial, yet a jury convicted him and the court gave him the ultimate sentence.

Write to Peterson and let him know how you feel about these pesky "circumstantial" cases. I'm sure he'll agree with you.

The jury should be jailed for failing to do its job. From the interviews individual jurors gave after the verdict, it's obvious that they did not devote enough time to the case (Flip-flopping from 10-2 for murder one and 6-6 on the manslaughter charge to a unanimous "not guity" in just ten hours!)

I think they did want to go home, but I also believe they wanted to please Judge Perry, who constantly reminded them of the cost of the trial. There were probably at least a few hold-outs on the panel who would have stood their ground for "not guilty" no matter what argument they heard, so rather than stay together for another week or two before ending in a hung jury (which would have meant another costly trial in the future), the group decided to give up the fight to hold Casey accountable and simply voted to let her off on the most serious charges.

Judge Perry was happy the Court finance committee he chaired won't have to shell out more money to cover another trial, and the jurors were happy they could go home. The only thing to suffer in this farce was justice.

Oldtime, What you have missed is that it can now be argued that the sexual orientation of the pedophile is just as valid as the orientation of the adult homosexual. Simply having a pedophile orientation doesn't mean the pervert will necessarily enter into a relationship with a kid. All it means is that they can now argue that they should not be discriminated against simply because they are attracted to children.

Using the gay criteria calling for public toleration and protection of people born with any given orientation, pedophiles should also be accepted by society - so long as they don't cross the line with a child who cannot legally consent to sex with a pervert adult. But if the pervert adult want to flaunt the fact that they get off thinking about kids, then - again, according to the gay criteria - it should be tolerated by our society and the public should not condemn them for being "born that way".

This is a disgusting precedent that will open the door to deviants of all descriptions, each hoping to gain acceptance and protection under the law.

They bent over, all right. But guess who's taking it up the (you know where)? We, the People of New York, should have decided this issue by a public referendum. It should not have been forced on us by a proverbial handful of legislators voting under pressure from the gay, special interest lobby.

Gays say homosexuality is their sexual orientation and no one can discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Using that same criteria, pedophiles could argue that their attraction to kids is a "sexual orientation", too, and it should be tolerated by society just as much as the adult gays are.

We can all thank the gay movement for opening the door to every pervert/ deviant under the sun who will now claim special rights and protections. They set the precedent.

Right on, cdb! No State has passed this sort of bill in a public referendum - only in legislatures under pressure from gay groups.

When the so-called "representatives" who voted for this nonsense are themselves voted out of office, watch them collect gay lobby rewards. It's what happened to Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and Democratic Party chair. He pressed for gay marriage in Vermont - through the State legislature, not by public referendum - and the gay lobby rewarded him by funding his run for President

Sure. Trade the clown at McDonalds for a diseased heart mascot. Put a picture of a car wreck or a broken family on beer and liquor labels. The possibilities are endless. Seriously, a little education goes a long way. Not everyone needs a picture to understand the risks.

liz, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was simply making an observation that the parent in this case is using the child as a pawn. The parent is exploiting the child (and the indoctrination he received and now parrots) to publicly advance a radical political cause. Even you cannot rationally dispute that.

Years ago, an elderly driver was dropping off a friend in front of a restaurant, and rather than pay attention to the road, she watched her friend to make sure she made it safely inside. Long story short, the driver hit and killed a friend of mine who was walking in the crosswalk.

I know that some elderly people can be perfectly safe drivers, but many cannot. It's a sad fact, but sight, reflexes - and sometimes judgement - can become impaired with age. It is important for elderly people to face reality and submit to regular exams - not only to ensure they will be safe, but so that the people they share the road with will be safe, too.

Excellent post, howlowkitty! The radical, in-your-face approach alienates people more than anything else.

I don't think that most people care what gay people do behind closed doors. It's the militant propaganda thrown into everyone's face, and the ridiculous assumption that people care enough about them enough to actually "hate" them, that makes them more objectionable than they would be if they simply wanted to blend into society (without special status), like everyone else.

lizequality, many children will repeat things their parents tell them. It's natural. What is most disturbing is that the parent is exploiting the child by reporting things the kid had parroted after being spoonfed propaganda that portrays all gays as victims and all gay advocates as potential martyrs. It is a shameless act to manipulate and exploit a child that way.

Weiner's childish behavior and lack of self control demonstrates that he has no place representing others. And as for the ethical issues in his case, if he cannot keep a vow to respect one person - his wife - then how can the public realistically expect him to keep an oath to millions? Good riddence.